He won the Democratic primary in California, sending him on as a candidate for the US Senate to replace Diane Feinstein, but he did it by pouring money into Republican Steve Garvey's campaign.
The way the Cal primary works is that the top two vote getters, no matter which party they're from, go on to the general election. By elevating Garvey to number two, Schiff avoids running against his own party's Katie Porter or Barbara Lee, and is almost assured a win against the Republican Garvey in blue California.
Up until this point, I held Schiff in very high regard. This is a large black mark, although I have to admit, he'll probably need less than sterling tactics in the Senate.
Now what will Katie Porter do? We need her great talents in Congress. She has lost her seat in the House and didn't win the Senate. Where will she go?
The party machine will never let Barbara Lee have any position. She bucked them on invading Iraq and turned out to be the only one who was on the right side of that. That can't be rewarded.
A coalition of progressive organizations and activists is running an outside campaign to elect California Rep. Barbara Lee as chair of the House Democratic Caucus ahead of the Wednesday vote. The campaign represents something of a departure for progressive organizations, which tend not to participate in a highly organized way in internal House Democratic elections.
No similar progressive campaign is being run for any other position, including speaker, majority leader, majority whip, or chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a powerful position with the ability to allocate resources in primaries and general elections around the country.
The effort also serves as a dry run for what could be a broader campaign in two years to install progressives throughout House leadership, flexing muscles that have long laid dormant.
[...]
For months, the race to replace Crowley was between Lee and California Rep. Linda Sánchez, who beat Lee in a narrow election for the No. 5 position two years ago. But shortly after Election Day, Sánchez withdrew her bid citing “an unexpected family matter,” which turned out to be her husband’s indictment on federal criminal charges.
[...]
New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a young lawmaker seen as one of the party’s rising stars, [has] jumped into the race [...] . Both Jeffries and Lee are members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but Jeffries is viewed as the more moderate of the two. Jeffries is regarded as a close ally of Pelosi’s as well.
[...]
Jeffries’s bid for the position departs from the unwritten norm that younger members wait their turn for their time in leadership roles, and if he succeeds, it could open the door in 2020 for other relatively new members of the caucus, such as Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin or Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who head the Progressive Caucus but are known to harbor higher ambitions.
[...]
With the top three leadership roles likely to remain in the hands of the same septuagenarian trio of Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn, Jeffries is running from the angle of generational change. Meanwhile, Lee’s supporters argue that her time as chair of the Black Caucus, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and her track record stretching from when she was an activist in the 1960s make her the right choice for this political moment. The contest is expected to be tight.
About a dozen incumbent Democrats and a half-dozen incoming Democrats are preparing a letter pledging to not support Pelosi on the House floor for speaker. The members also intend to note another contingent of Democrats who privately say they won’t support the longtime California Democrat but won’t sign the letter, according to Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), one of the ringleaders of the effort to block Pelosi.
[...]
[T]he group is trying to get more than 20 members before releasing [the letter]. Currently on the letter, though not certain to stay on it, are:
- Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)
- Seth Moulton (D-Mass.)
- Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
- Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.)
- Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.)
- Filemon Vela Jr. (D-Texas)
- Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio)
- Bill Foster (D-Ill.)
- Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.)
- Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
- Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.)
- Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.)
- Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.)
- Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.)
- Max Rose (D-N.Y.)
- Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.)
- Ben McAdams (D-Utah)
There is another contingent of Democrats ― including Conor Lamb (D-Pa.), Dan Lipinksi (D-Ill.), Ron Kind (D-Wis.), Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) ― who are seen as likely to vote against Pelosi, but who also are hesitant to sign the letter.
[...]
But Pelosi also has a number of ways she could wrangle the speaker’s gavel even if a dozen and a half members pledge to oppose her. For one, Democrats could make a new rule binding every member to vote for the Democratic nominee.
And it would be just like them, but that would be a terrible start to a new Congress. Strong-arming their own party.
The way the speaker election works is that a candidate first gets the nomination behind closed doors during the Democratic Caucus meeting. That is the easiest hurdle to clear. A candidate only needs a majority of their party for the speaker nomination, and Pelosi has that part essentially locked up.
The hard part is the floor vote, when a candidate needs a majority of the House: 218 of the 435 members. That number includes Republicans. While we don’t know the exact breakdown of the House yet, it’s likely to be around 234 Democrats and 191 Republicans ― give or take a couple of members on both sides. If the number is 234 Democrats, Pelosi can lose only 16 Democrats if every member votes.
[...]
Pelosi’s allies all readily point out that “you can’t beat somebody with nobody,” but Pelosi’s opponents are testing that idea. In fact, they seem to think their movement is strengthened without a clear alternative.
The idea is that, once Pelosi knows she can’t win, she will step aside and there would be a new race for the speaker position.
She doesn't seem like the type to step aside.
Pelosi says she is confident she can survive.
Exiting a caucus meeting this morning, Pelosi said she could stop and take questions.
“I’m a busy person,” she said. “I will be speaker of the House no matter what Seth Moulton says.”
[...]
Members believe ― for good reason ― that there would be a rush of candidates for the speaker job if Pelosi stepped down, potentially including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Assistant Minority Leader Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).
If I had a vote, it would be for Barbara Lee. She's already proven herself to be the only Democrat in Congress (until this year's new members who haven't had a chance to prove themselves) brave enough to do the right thing, even under extreme pressure. Lee is the only member of Congress, either party, to vote against invading Iraq.
In a stunning move, the House Appropriations Committee today approved an amendment to the massive military spending bill offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D – CA). The amendment, passed in a voice vote, and would repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).
[...]
[The House Republican leadership is] going for a do-over on the amendment, insisting the vote was “out of order” and therefore didn’t really count.
This argument is based on the House Foreign Affairs Committee arguing that they have “sole jurisdiction” over all AUMFs, and that it was therefore impossible for the Appropriations Committee to repeal it, like the vote did.
[...]
The 2001 AUMF authorizes the president to wage war on those directly involved in 9/11, the interpretation of which at this point is that the president can declare wars pretty much at will and this amounts to Congressional authorization for all of them. This AUMF was used to justify the Afghan War, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the re-invasion of Iraq after that first war ended, and the invasion of Syria both to fight against ISIS, and potentially to pick a fight with the Syrian government. It was also presented as justification for the 2016 US intervention in Libya, though ironically not the US-led regime change war in Libya, which was itself “justified” by a vaguely worded UN resolution.
The fate of the provision is uncertain, and there’s more than one way that GOP leadership could strike it. Whatever happens, it represents a new frontier in Congress’ debates about presidential authority to wage war, and Minnesota members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are broadly supportive of the measure.
The language in the amendment, introduced by California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, is straightforward. It repeals the current AUMF, and the authorization would be void 240 days after the amendment is enacted into law.
[...]
There are important holdouts who could exercise their power to kill the amendment. Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, chairs the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, and she opposes it on the grounds that it would cripple U.S. efforts to combat terrorism.
The House Rules Committee could strike the amendment before the defense spending bill gets to the floor for a vote by deeming it “out of order,” if the GOP majority, which wields the rules panel’s power, decides to.
[...]
If the language does make it to the House floor, a lawmaker could file an amendment to strike Lee’s amendment, and members could vote in favor of that, or against the entire spending bill if there was enough support to maintain the current AUMF without any debate.
If the bill does pass with the AUMF language, the Senate would need to agree to it, too — another potential way it could fail, though bipartisan support exists in the upper chamber for a new AUMF. President Donald Trump could also veto the bill on those grounds, though the stakes would be high, since the amendment is attached to legislation that funds the entire U.S. military and Department of Defense.
[...]
Historically, the enthusiasm for a new AUMF or a declaration of war has been with anti-war progressives and constitutional conservatives, both wary of executive overreach. But recently, as U.S. targets have shifted to include ISIS and now the Syrian military, more voices on both sides have expressed a desire for at least a debate on a new set of parameters for U.S. military action.
[...]
Rep. Betty McCollum, who sits on this committee, said in a statement that she supported it “because it is long past time for Congress to have a debate on this critical issue. After 16 years, we owe it to the men and women serving in the military, and to all Americans, to have a full and complete discussion and a floor vote on a new authorization.”
[...]
Rep. Keith Ellison was more cynical. In a statement, he ventured that Republicans might be allowing the debate now because “they’re finally coming to terms with the fact that their president is an immature, disinterested, petulant child… even the most ideological among the GOP realize that giving a man like that the authority to make war when and where he pleases without congressional oversight is a bad idea.”
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) is leading a small group of House Democrats in calling on President Barack Obama to release information regarding the Administration’s use of drone strikes.
In a letter sent Monday, Lee said a leaked Department of Justice memo showed an “increasing devolution of accountability, transparency, and Constitutional protections in U.S. counterterrorism operations.” The 16-page memo provided an outline of the Obama’s administration legal justification of targeted drone strikes against U.S. citizens.
The letter was signed by Democratic Reps. John Conyers (MI), Keith Ellison (MN), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Donna Edwards (MD), Mike Honda (CA), Rush Holt (NJ), and James McGovern (MA).
Rush Holt is someone you don't often hear about in the national media, but every time I do, I am impressed positively. I tend to forget about him when I think that after Russ Feingold was defeated and Barney Frank quit, Bernie Sanders is the only congressMAN with a conscience left. Perhaps there are a few others who aren't national news.
I wonder - could they have found even one senator to sign had they asked?
